Quote

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Roanoke Times on whether a college should include in its records an arrest report of its students - or potential students - when no convictions came of it:

At the University of Virginia, the first time students log into campus computers this fall, they will be asked if they have been arrested or convicted of a crime. Since 2004, students were supposed to reveal any arrests or convictions to the school, but no one ever asked. Now, they confront the question directly. Any who lie would violate the school's honor code and be subject to expulsion.

Virginia universities want to know if their students have been in any trouble with the law -- ever, anywhere. In the interest of campus safety, officials could make a reasonable case that students fess up to convictions, but a policy that requires students to report arrests goes too far.

[A] student's university record should not bear the taint of an arrest that occurred perhaps hundreds of miles away and never led to a conviction. If no court found wrongdoing, it is none of the school's business.

Too often Americans are "convicted" even before they're tried. Just ask Ray Donovan.

Or, potentially, "convicted" though they're never tried. As was the case with Alberto Gonzales.*

Be careful with those records. Reputations can be unfairly ruined by them.

Two men - George Allen and Alberto Gonzales - had their reputations destroyed by the partisan hacks at the Washington Post to further the ends of their favored politicians. Where do Allen and Gonzales go to get their reputations back?

I'm a big believer in the concept that each and every one of us should be allowed his day in court. With that understood, shouldn't we give the executives at the Washington Post their day in court and then send their asses to prison for what they've (allegedly) done?

The world's second-biggest terrorist organization is four-square behind Barack Obama's effort to have that mosque celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center built near Ground Zero. With friends like these ...

Hamas nod for Ground Zero mosque
By S.A. Miller and Tom Topousis, New York Post

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.

"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip. [link]

"Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

That was just before he decided he had been too clear. See "Obama Mosque Retreat." He didn't mean what he said. He meant something totally different. Clear?

His position today? Well, it's not clear.

But maybe it ought to be, since he's the freaking president of the United States and since he opened this can of worms.

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren't you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson's generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven't they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as "hallowed ground"?

Obama's response? Well, it's a local matter. And leave him alone. He's got more important matters to attend to like showing the American people that the Gulf of Mexico is now safe to swim in by swimming where the Gulf ain't.

"Let me be clear." If only.

- - -

Just to make it clear, White House spokesman Bill Burton said the following:

"Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."

The coalfields of Southwest Virginia are under assault. The enemy - the Environmental Protection Agency - is hellbent on shutting them down and throwing tens of thousands of good American citizens trying to eke out a living there - our neighbors - out of work. To reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by trace amounts. Perhaps. And gain favor with the environmentalists who push their buttons. For certain.

We have but one person in Washington responsible for protecting the interests of those tens of thousands of citizens and their families - Congressman Rick Boucher. Democrat.

But instead of protecting his constituents, Mr. Boucher has caved - without a fight - to the EPA and to the environmentalists, saying, in so many words, Well, the EPA is going to regulate coal no matter what I do, so we need to try to get the best deal from the agency that we can get.

That's like bargaining with the hangman on the length of rope he's about to use.

Want to know what real leadership looks like? Just walk a few mountains over. Into the coalfields of Kentucky:

Hindman — Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul took harsh digs at President Barack Obama while mining for votes in Kentucky coalfields Saturday, saying busybody regulators backed by the president are stifling the coal sector.

Paul vowed to challenge Obama "every step of the way" if elected in November, seeking to capitalize on a political environment where flocks of voters have never warmed to the Democratic president.

Paul claimed Obama "cares nothing about Kentucky and cares even less about Kentucky coal."

"We have a president who is forcing the EPA down our throats," Paul said. "Even without changing the rules, the EPA is stifling the permit process, and people (are) out of work here because of the president and his policies.

"With all due respect, Mr. President, you're wrong, and you need to stay out of Kentucky affairs. And you need to keep the EPA out of our affairs because we need jobs, and we're not going to get jobs with a busybody EPA that's in our way." [link]

"People (are) out of work here because of the president and his policies." And it's only just begun.

Unless elected representatives in Washington like Rand Paul start defying him. And his policies.

Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn, supports the construction of a mosque on private property in close proximity to where Islamic terrorists murdered over 2,700 people — but what kind of New York grand opening does Quinn oppose? A Wal-Mart — on private property.